Judges Recusal

Context:

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y  Chandrachud rejected an application seeking his recusal from hearing petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Image Source: The Wire

About Judges Recusal:

• Recusal refers to the act of a judge voluntarily disqualifying themselves from participating in a particular case. 
• When a judge recuses themselves, they remove themselves from the proceedings due to a potential conflict of interest or some other factor that may compromise their impartiality or fairness.
• There are no statutory rules governing the process, it is often left to the judges themselves to record reasons for recusals.
• Origin: 

• • nemo judex in sua causa: The practice stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law — nemo judex in sua causa, that is, no person shall be a judge in his own case. 
  • Rex v. Sussex Justices:Another principle guiding judicial recusals is ‘justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done’ propounded in 1924 in Rex v. Sussex Justices by the then Lord Chief Justice of England.
  • Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life: It was adopted by the Supreme Court which forbids a judge from deciding a case involving any entity where he holds pecuniary interest unless the concerned parties clarify that they have no objections.

•  Procedure for recusal:

  • Automatic recusal: In it,  a judge himself withdraws from the case, or when a party raises a plea for recusal highlighting the possibility of bias or personal interest of the judge in the case.
  • The decision to recuse rests solely on the conscience and discretion of the judge and no party can compel a judge to withdraw from a case.

What rules has the Supreme Court formulated in the past?

• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987): In it the Supreme Court held that to determine if a judge should recuse, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension of bias in the mind of the concerned party. 
• State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998): In it, the Supreme court defined judicial bias as a “preconceived opinion or a predisposition or predetermination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so much so that such predisposition does not leave the mind open to conviction”.
• Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court observed that where a judge has a pecuniary interest, no further inquiry is needed as to whether there was a ‘real danger’ or ‘reasonable suspicion’ of bias.

What is the practice in foreign jurisdictions?

• Contrasted with India, the United States has a well-defined law on recusals — Title 28 of the U.S. Code details the grounds for ‘disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge’.

Significance: 

• Recusal is an important mechanism to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. 
• It helps to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and prevents situations where a judge’s personal biases or conflicts of interest could influence the outcome of a case.

                                                                                                                                          News Source:  The Hindu